yet they struggled against him in the first 2 tests in pakistan. infact even at the end of the series, Harmison outbowled everyone bar Flintoff(who was only marginally ahead of him in averages)

Err, I hardly see how they struggled with him...
Younis missed a straight ball in the first-innings at Multan. It happens. He'd been utterly innocuous before.
Raza fell for the most blindingly obvious three-card trick. Hopefully he won't be around to fall for it again. Ever.
Kaneria cut a Long-Hop to gully.
Malik played his typical terrible stroke. It was a nothing delivery. Malik just isn't Test-class, certainly not as an opener.
Dismissing Shabbir Ahmed means absolutely nothing. I've seen worse batsmen only once or twice.
Akmal then had a slog because he was batting with the tail.
So that 6-89 was exceptionally flattering. 3 wickets came at the end, and the 3 that came at the top certainly didn't come from wicket-taking deliveries. Only 1 was a Test-class batsman.
Then...
Salman Butt chased one. It's a typical dismissal for him. It was still a nothing ball.
Rana and Shoaib then got out after he'd been dealt with well by the batsmen.
Then, after being innocuous for most of the innings, he got gifted 2 on the final morning, by Akmal and Rana again.
The fact that his figures were decent in the first 2 Tests certainly does not equate to him causing troubles in some way that any bowler was not going to.

no bar Lords 05 and Headingly 04, almost every other pitch offered very little in terms of seam movement or conventional swing in the last 2 years.

And bar Trent Bridge and Headingley 2003, Headingley 2002 and the first session at Edgbaston 2002, none did in the 2 previous years either.
You know why there's been so little conventional swing recently? That actually dates back a season further than the change in pitches. In 2001, it was widely noted that many seamers who'd normally been able to swing it struggled to - Dominic Cork the most obvious example. The reason was a change of ball.
Of course, we've still seen occasions where it swung, but we've also seen countless where conditions seemed perfect for conventional-swing and commentators commented on how little of it had actually happened.

not if he can bowl like he did in the in 2004 or get a hard bouncy deck.

He's bowled like he bowled in the first 7 Tests in 2004 (not the last 7) once or twice, and usually caused few problems.
Added to the fact that he's extremely unlikely even to bowl like it more than very occasionally from now on.
Quite what you mean by a "hard bouncy deck" I don't exactly know. England have played on plenty of reasonably bouncy decks (many with inconsistent bounce too) since the home West Indies series - and Harmison has never made use of it. Even at Lord's in 2005, only 1 wicket came from the uneven bounce.

I can't believe how many people keep bringing his test debut into light in an attempt to dismiss him as an ordinary bowler. He has obviously worked hard on his bowling and his action has changed a bit too. 24 wickets in three matches against India and Sri Lanka is no joke.

Plenty of people don't realise that to best assess some cricketers you have to draw a line somewhere and say that 1 part of a career really doesn't have any relation to another, even if the player is the same.
Andrew Flintoff 1998-2002 and 2003-current is one.
Mohammad Asif debut-2004\05 and 2005\06-onwards may be another.
There are millions of other examples I could give.
Then there are the three-part players like Gatting and Mushtaq Ahmed.

Err, I hardly see how they struggled with him...
Younis missed a straight ball in the first-innings at Multan. It happens. He'd been utterly innocuous before.
Raza fell for the most blindingly obvious three-card trick. Hopefully he won't be around to fall for it again. Ever.
Kaneria cut a Long-Hop to gully.
Malik played his typical terrible stroke. It was a nothing delivery. Malik just isn't Test-class, certainly not as an opener.
Dismissing Shabbir Ahmed means absolutely nothing. I've seen worse batsmen only once or twice.
Akmal then had a slog because he was batting with the tail.
So that 6-89 was exceptionally flattering. 3 wickets came at the end, and the 3 that came at the top certainly didn't come from wicket-taking deliveries. Only 1 was a Test-class batsman.
Then...
Salman Butt chased one. It's a typical dismissal for him. It was still a nothing ball.
Rana and Shoaib then got out after he'd been dealt with well by the batsmen.
Then, after being innocuous for most of the innings, he got gifted 2 on the final morning, by Akmal and Rana again.
The fact that his figures were decent in the first 2 Tests certainly does not equate to him causing troubles in some way that any bowler was not going to.

oh once again a Richard post with so much logic
whether or not you think his bowling was not special or the batting was poor is not relevant, the fact is that the pakistan batsman didnt handle it very well. and if they didnt handle it very well one cannoy assume that they would handle it any better in England. which by and large throws water on your theory that the Pakistan problems should have absolutely no problems against Harmison.

Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

And bar Trent Bridge and Headingley 2003, Headingley 2002 and the first session at Edgbaston 2002, none did in the 2 previous years either.

what is with the Headingly 2002 that you keep mentioning as seamer friendly. the only bowlers that got wickets on that track were the spinners.

Originally Posted by Richard

Of course, we've still seen occasions where it swung, but we've also seen countless where conditions seemed perfect for conventional-swing and commentators commented on how little of it had actually happened.

no the problem is that people dont tend to look at games in England session by session. As such its quite likely that one session in England offered plenty of swing while another offered absolutely none. and its happened plenty of times before.

I saw the guy against Aus on debut and thought the guy has potential. He dint take a wkt but "looked" like with some work can me a good line/length bowler. He never got nearly as much movement then, because he is just a genuine wkt taker. I just hope he stays fit, healthy, and humble. If he is all of that that InshaAllah he will do well for Pak in the yrs to come as well.

oh once again a Richard post with so much logic
whether or not you think his bowling was not special or the batting was poor is not relevant, the fact is that the pakistan batsman didnt handle it very well. and if they didnt handle it very well one cannoy assume that they would handle it any better in England. which by and large throws water on your theory that the Pakistan problems should have absolutely no problems against Harmison.

The point is I'd expect them to handle him better - and I'd also expect (given past happenings) him to get less instances where tail-end wickets make figures look better than they deserve to.
I don't really care if 1 or 2 top-order batsmen played poor strokes on a couple of occasions - because mostly it hasn't happened with Harmison. Mostly, for every time it has, it hasn't on 3 or 4 others.

what is with the Headingly 2002 that you keep mentioning as seamer friendly. the only bowlers that got wickets on that track were the spinners.

Err, so what? You seem far too preoccupied with who-got-wickets\what-the-result-was than the actual happenings. There was plenty of seam-movement at Headingley 2002 - not as much as at some Headingley Tests, no, but plenty still. The fact that pretty much no seamers got wickets simply says that all the seamers who played bowled rubbish - hardly surprising since the only decent seamer in either side was half-fit.
They still moved the ball plenty - they just didn't pitch it in the right areas, anywhere near often enough. And, on the rare occasions they did, the batsmen played it well.

no the problem is that people dont tend to look at games in England session by session. As such its quite likely that one session in England offered plenty of swing while another offered absolutely none. and its happened plenty of times before.

Err, there have been very few sessions which have offered lavish conventional-swing since the balls were changed in 2001. In 2000, it wasn't unusual to see all 4 bowlers bending it around corners for sustained periods. Nor, indeed, was it unusual the previous summer, or the one before.